HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB202000055 Correspondence 2021-04-12 (6)SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C.
Design Focused Engineering
April 12, 2021
Mariah Gleason
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
RE: Response Letter #4 for SUB202000055 Proffit Road Townhomes North — Planning
Dear Mariah,
Thank you for your review of the Road Plans for Proffit Road Townhomes North. This letter contains
responses to County comments dated December 15, 2020. Our responses are as follows:
1. [ ZMA2018- 06, 32. 7.2.2( d- e)] Extension and coordination ofstreets. County Code requires all
streets within a development to extend and be constructed to the abutting property lines. To meet
this requirement:
a. Show construction of proposed Road D up to the property line of TMP 32A- 2- 113 and
secure any off -site construction or grading easements that may be needed to allow the
construction of Road D up to the property line.
OR
b. Provide documentation to demonstrate that the abutting landowner will not grant the
easement, show construction of proposed Road D as close to the abutting property line as
possible, and grant the necessary easement area to allow the future extension/connection
of Road D to this parcel boundary in the future. Note: The easement plat will need to be
submitted, reviewed, approved, and recorded prior to final site plan approval.
Rev. 1: The comment response letter from the applicant indicates that documentation
from the abutting landowner, consistent with Comment 6b, will be provided to staff. The
aforementioned documentation will be needed before this comment can be resolved. In
addition, provide information to demonstrate that the road is being built as close as
possible to the abutting property line and that a future connection can be built inside the
right- of -way on the subject property. If not, easements outside of the proposed right -of
way may be needed to ensure this segment of roadway can be built in the future.
Rev. 2: Comment not fully addressed. Thank you for including the letter from Southern
States ( the abutting landowner of TMP 32A-2- 1B). To satisfy this comment fully, also
provide materials to demonstrate that a future road connection can be made in this area.
Materials should show if easements on the subject property or adjoining parcels are
needed to allow the road connection to be fully constructed.
Rev. 3: Comment not fully addressed. While grading easements to allow a future
road connection and extension were included with the revised plan, staff is still
unable to determine whether the proposed grading easement areas, and possibly the
road termination point, are adequate to allow the modification to the requirement
for roads to be constructed to abutting property lines. Staff recommends designing
the road as if it is going to be built to the property line so that the previously
mentioned aspects can be analyzed.
This comment has been resolved with an email by providing an exhibit of the
temporary construction easement and possible future grading.
912 E. High Sr. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com
2. [ Comment] This road plan application is only for the review/approval of improvements in the
right-of-way. All other information and improvements outside of the right- of -way are being
reviewed with site plan application SDP202000028.
We understand that the Road Plan review is separate from the Site Plan Review.
[ Rev. 2] On Sheet C3, the proposed road names shown on the plan map differ from those listed
in the break- out notes. Also, the plan map shows two spellings for the entrance road — "Aspire
and " Aspen'. These names are also different from those shown on the subdivision plat. For
example, the subdivision plat labels the entrance road " Zelkova Dr". Clarify the desired name for
each proposed road. Rev. 3: Comment not addressed. There still seems to be a conflict on Sheet
C3 between the proposed road names shown on the plan map and those indicated in the plan
notes. Please revise the proposed road names accordingly and ensure alignment between this
plan, the site plan, and subdivision plat.
We were still trying to come up with road names that are acceptable by the GIS and
our client, that is why Road names have been changing and the Submittal of the
Plat, Site Plan & Road Plan has been overlapping and with each submittal we were
trying new names. The Proposed names on the Road Plan with this submittal are
the correct ones and we will ensure that the Road Names will be the same on the
next Plat Submittal and Final Site Plan Submittal. Road Names on Sheet C3 have
been revised on the note. The road profiles & Sight Distance Profiles text has also
been revised with the new names.
4. [ Rev. 31 Street trees. Staff recommends replacing tree species in front of Lots 23- 30 with a
columnar or narrow cultivar to accommodate lack of growing area. Note, this is just a suggestion
to facilitate successful street tree planting; this is not a requirement of approval.
Suggestion noted, however, the owner likes the trees that are proposed, which is why
the landscaping wasn't revised with this submittal.
If you have any questions or concerns about these revisions, please feel free to contact me at
keane@shimp-en ing eering com or by phone at 434-227-5140.
Regards,
Keane Rucker, FIT
Shimp Engineering, P.C.
912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com